Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-05-05Approved May 19, 1981 MINUTES 11 HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, MAY 5, 1981 - 7:10 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bannister (7:15), Kenefick, Winchell, Porter,- Paone, Schumacher COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 21, 1981, WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister' ABSTAIN: Schumacher ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY WINCHELL CGP NO. 81-4, STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN THIRTEENTH STREET, WAS FOUND TO BE IN CON- FORMANCE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Mike Multari, who has acted as project director in the formulation of the proposed amendment to the oil code, addressed the Commission to describe the activities of the Oil Committee in the preparation of the amendment. He explained that the oil code amendment is part of the preparation of the Local Coastal Plan Energy Element, a project funded by the Coastal Commission for the implementation of energy policies, amendment to the oil district zoning ordinances, and the subject amendment to the oil code. Mr. Multari discussed the principal changes proposed, which include: 1) clarification to the administrative sections of the code; 2) inclusion of more information relating to adjacent uses as part of the permit process; 3) suggestion for increasb of the Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 5, 1981 Page 2 surety bonds for new oil wells; 4) requirement for landscaping and screening on all well sites in developed areas by 1983; 5) prohibi- tion of storage of portable equipment in most cases; 6) review of oil spill plans which are required by the state; 7) requirement for vapor recovery systems over wellheads ; and 8) inclusion of other minor changes to the code to improve safety and aesthetics and to in- crease efficiency of administration of the code. Chairman Porter inquired how the code addressed the recurring prob- lem of how to handle adjacent uses when permitting oil operations. Mr. Multari replied that the Fire Code at present does not allow any construction of buildings within 100 feet of existing uses nor does it allow drilling within 100 feet of existing construction unless provisions for fire safety are installed. The Fire Department has been using these criteria for a number of years, and the actual language in the code amendment will just bring the existing procedure into code conformance. Mr. Porter commented that this is a particu- larly pertinent section of the oil code, since there will be continued operation and reactivation of wells which will result in inevitable conflict with other uses unless the City and the staff become in- creasingly cognizant of the problem in the future. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-7 - Appeal. (Cont. from 4-21-81) Applicant: Cole Construction Corporation To permit a second floor of a dwelling located on the south side of Venture Drive approximately 800 feet east of Typhoon Lane to encroach five (5) feet into the required front yard setback. Savoy Bellavia informed the Commission that the appellant in this appeal has submitted a letter withdrawing his original appeal. Staff and legal counsel discussed the procedure which should be followed. Secretary Palin stated that he would like the Commission to follow established policy and formally accept or reject the withdrawal, even though technically the letter of withdrawal removes the matter from the Commission's jurisdiction according to the Attorney's representa- tive. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPEAL TO CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-7 WAS ACCEPTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Applicant is to be notified that this action permits the Board of Zoning Adjustments' approval to stand. -2- 5-5-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 5, 1981 Page 3 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11351/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-32 Applicant: Anthony Bartoli (Cont. from 4-21-81) A request to permit construction of a 16-unit condominium develop- ment on the east side of Green Street approximately 500 feet south of Warner Avenue. Savoy Bellavia informed the Commission that at its request staff has prepared findings and conditions of approval for con- sideration. The public hearing was reopened. The applicant did not wish to address the Commission and no other persons were present to speak to the matter, and the public hearing was closed. - - The Commission reviewed the project, discussing particularly the deficiency in open space. The applicability of the planned development ordinance to small lots of this type was again re- viewed in depth. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KENEFICK AND SECONDED BY PAONE TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-32 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS AS SUBMITTED BY STAFF. THE MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone NOES: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None After further discussion, Chairman Porter indicated that -he would change his vote only because the mandatory processing date is past and to do otherwise would be to approve the project. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-32 AND THE SPECIAL PERMIT REQUESTED THEREFOR WERE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: The special permit was granted for the following exceptions to the ordinance code: 1) S. 9362.11 Common Open Space; 2) S. 9362.12 Main Recreation Area; and 3) S. 9362.15 Private Access Drive Width (26 feet in lieu of 48 feet). 1. Through modifications of the original site plan and elevations, the applicant has made substantial progress toward conforming with standards in Article 936 of the ordinance code, and there- fore the project will promote a better living environment. 2. The project contains features which provide good land plan- ning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing -3- 5-5-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 5, 1981 Page 4 types of architecture, landscaping, site layout, and design. 3. The project will not be detrimental to the general health,'wel- fare, safety, and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of -the neighborhood or of the--City_in general. 4. The project is consistent with objectives of planned unit devel- opment standards in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and -compatible with the surrounding environment. FINDINGS-- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-32: 1. The proposed site plan substantially complies with the General Plan and with Division 9 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as -objectives for implementation of this type of housing. 3. The property was previously studied for -this intensity of use at the time the R3 zoning designation was placed on the subject property. _- 4. The proposed subdivision of this .97 acre parcel of land zoned R3, Medium High -Density Residential, is proposed to be constructed having 16.5 units per gross acre. 5. The lot size, depth, frontage, street width and, through the use of a.special,permit, all other design and implementation features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be constructed in compliance with -standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and -supplementary City Subdivision Ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan received and dated April 10, 1981, and floor plans and elevations received and dated February 24, 1981, shall be the -approved layout. 2. Natural gas and-220V electrical shall -be stubbed in at the -loca- tion of clothes dryers. 3. Natural -gas -shall be stubbed in at the location of.cooking facili- ties, water heaters, and central heating units. 4. Low -volume heads shall be used on all showers. 5. All building spoils such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. -4- 5-5-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 5, 1981 Page 5 6. Energy -efficient lighting shall be used in parking lots and/or recreation areas. 7. All dwellings on the subject property shall be constructed in compliance with the state acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the prop- erty. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report prepared under the super- vision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering with the application for a building permit. 8. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth move- ment from the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factor as indicated by the geologist's report. Calcula- tions for footings and structural members to withstand anti- cipated g-factors shall be submitted to the Building Division for review prior to issuance of the building permit. 9. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer. This analysis shall include onsite sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill proper- ties,.foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. 10. The covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall contain a provision that will prohibit storage of boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles onsite unless an area that is specifically designed for such storage and which is in com- pliance with the provisions of Article 936 is provided for in the project. 11. If at any time an entry gate is proposed at the main entrance, the location and design shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Development Services and the Fire Department. 12. The necessary plumbing shall be installed in each unit to accommodate the installation of solar hot water heating equip- ment. The applicant shall offer to install solar hot water heating equipment to the buyer at the time of sale of the units. 13. The design and materials of the perimeter wall shall be sub- ject to the approval of the Department of Development Services prior to the issuance of building permits. 14. A detailed landscape and sprinkler plan shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Development Services prior to the issuance of building permits. -5- 5-5-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 5, 1981 Page 6 AYES: Bannister, Kenefick,� Porter, Paone NOES: Winchell, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Savoy Bellavia noted that a new tract map has been received and the date of approval in the suggested conditions should be changed to May 5,, 1981. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY BANNISTER TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11351 WAS APPROVED.WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS.AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOL- LOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed site plan substantially complies with the General Plan and with Division 9 of ,the Huntington Beach.Ordinance Code. 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as objectives for implementation of this type of housing. 3. The property was-.previously_studied for this intensity of use at the time the R3 zoning designation was placed on the subject prop- erty.: 4. The proposed subdivision of this .97 gross acre parcel of land zoned R3, Medium High Density Residential, is proposed to be con- structed having 16.5 units per gross acre. 5. The lot size, depth, frontage, street width and, through the use of.a special permit, all other,design and implementation features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be constructed in com- pliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and supplementary City subdivision ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The tentative tract received and dated May 5, 1981 shall be the approved layout. 2. The water system shall be in accordance with Department of Public Works standards.- 3. Sewer, drainage,- and street improvements shall be in accordance with Department of Public Works standards. 4. Fire hydrants shall be located in accordance with Fire Department standards. 5. An erosion and siltation control plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to construction of the project. -6- 5-5-81 - P.C. [1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 5, 1981 Page 7 6. The applicant shall install all street improvements along Green Street in accordance with Department of Public Works standards. AYES: Bannister, DOES: Winchell, ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Kenefick, Porter, Paone Schumacher ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-3/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-26 Applicant: Lindborg/Dahl Investors, Inc. To permit a change of zone from RA-0 to R1-10,000 for 10 acres of property located on the east side of Edwards Street approxi- mately 1000 feet south of Ellis Avenue. The public hearing was opened. David Dahl, applicant, described the history of his attempts to utilize this property, beginning in 1970, and the history of the City's inaction in the area. He requested that the Commission either approve his request or give him some indication of what it would consider a viable alternative. Mr. Dahl also indicated that he would support a delay in action while the staff discussed the issues on the property, but not merely to again postpone a decision. The applicant also pointed out that he did make an error in his request by omitting the existing "0" suffix and agreed that it should remain in the zoning designation. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. June Catalano informed the Commission that the estate zoning study directed by the City Council is under way and the staff hopes to have it ready for a joint study session between the Commission and the Council in early June of this year. The Council had instructed the staff to investigate a complete concept for the 300 acre area of which this parcel is a part, to see what zoning designations could be used to implement the estate residen- tial proposed between Ellis and Garfield west of Gothard Street. The -completion of this study is the reason the staff has recom- mended that this zone change not be approved at this time. Chairman Porter suggested that this zone change be readvertised to replace the "0" suffix and continued for 60 days to allow re- view of the estate residential study. Mr. Dahl concurred with a continuance for that purpose to the first meeting in July. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-3 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-26 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JULY 7, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -7- 5-5-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 5, 1981 Page 8 ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-4/NEGATIVE DECLARATION -NO. 81-25 Applicant: Mola Development Corporation To permit a change of zone from R3-18 to R3-23 on a 12.5 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Bolsa Chica Street approximately 660 feet south of Warner Avenue. The public hearing was opened. Frank Mola addressed the Commission to concur with staff's recommen- dation and offer to answer questions. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal,'and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Schumacher questioned the need for the increase in den- sity requested by this application. Mr. Mola responded that in the period between the original application and the present the problems and expense encountered in extensive environmental study of the site followed by the operation to clear the old dump area have made it desirable to add units. He informed the Commission that the upzoning will not alter the original site plan significantly; the basic -circu- lation plan has not changed at all, -and the project still meets open space and parking requirements. He described how the units would be added and assured the Commission that he would be requesting m further special permits when the new tract map is processed. Commission discussion ensued, taking into account the proposal's conformity with the General Plan and the applicant's cooperation with the City in the removal of hazardous wastes from the site. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY PAONE - NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-25 WAS ADOPTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY PAONE ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-4 WAS APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed R3-23 zoning is consistent with the City's General Plan. 2. The proposed increase in density will not increase the load.on public facilities in a manner which would exceed the capacity of such facilities. 3. The proposed increase in density will not cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. -8- 5-5-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 5, 1981 Page 9 4. The proposed increase in density will not adversely affect living conditions in the surrounding neighborhood. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Paone NOES: Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The Commission recessed at 9:35 and reconvened at 9:45 p.m. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-12 Applicant: Adel M. Zeidan To permit the establishment of an amusement arcade in property located on the southeast corner of Main Street and Walnut Avenue. The public hearing was opened and closed when no one was present to address the Commission in regard to the request. The Commission discussed the standards applicable to these types of operations and the need for an ordinance that would regulate the installation of game machines in a business licensed for an- other use, in order to attain some control over their location and operation. Savoy Bellavia indicated that staff is preparing a special report on this problem which will propose certain criteria for installa- tion of the machines; this report should be ready for submittal to the Commission by late May or early June. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-12 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed use is generally compatible with surrounding land uses because they are generally commercial. 2. The proposed amusement arcade will generally be compatible with surrounding land uses if the following conditions of approval are imposed on the applicant. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and floor plan received and dated March 18, 1981 shall be the approved layout. 2. Hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. seven days per week. 3. A provision shall be made for bicycle racks to be used by customers of the arcade. Planning Division staff will review -9- 5-5-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 5, 1981 Page 10 and determine the number and location of such a facility. 4. The facility shall be supervised at all times during operation by at least One applicant. 5. The proposed use shall comply with all Building Division and Fire Department regulations. 6. The Planning Commission reserves the right to rescind this con- ditional use permit approval -in the event of any violation of the applicable zoning laws or the above conditions of approval. Any such -decision shall be -preceded -by notice to the applicant and a public hearing and shall be based upon specific findings. AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone, Schumacher NOES: Bannister: -- ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT N0. 81=2 (Cont. from 4-21-81) Initiated by the City An amendment to Article 953 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to allow outside storage and special criteria for establishing said uses' -within -this district. Staff reported that the ordinance is not yet properly numbered and certain minor modifications remain to be made. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-2 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF MAY 19, 1981 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: ' Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS: DISCUSSION TO REVISION OF PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FEES Initiated by Community Services Department A proposal to amend Division 9 to change park and recreation fee schedule and effect certain other changes in park dedication require- ments. Norm Worthy informed the Commission that a recently updated appraisal study had prompted the Community Services Commission and the City Council in a joint session to direct staff to consider amending Articles 974 and 996 for possible amendment to the codes pertaining 1 -10- 5-5-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 5, 1981 Page 11 to park development fees. These changes are being proposed to al- leviate the inequity between those developers who are required to dedicate and those who only pay park fees; the revision will adjust the fee schedule so that it keeps pace with the rising land values. Because fees cannot be increased the 500 percent which has been the increase in land value since 1976, the staff has proposed to reduce the goal of 5 acres of park per thousand new population to 2.5 acres, but still require large developments of more than 40 acres to provide private open space at the same 2.5 ratio over and above the open space presently required by code. Money that would come in from the small developments would go toward park development. These steps would approximately double the existing fees. Mr. Worthy noted that concurrence has already been obtained from the Community Services Commission and asked for like concurrence from the Planning Commission so that staff can prepare the necessary code amendments. Very intensive discussion among commission members ensued, centering mainly on the lowering of the park goals, which it was noted have not been attained under the present requirement of 5 acres per thousand. It was a concern of several commissioners that perhaps the lowered goal would not be attained either, and that before voting for the proposal further information should be submitted on that particular phase. Chairman Porter questioned the validity of the provision on the 40-acre-or-more projects, saying that it would be relatively easy to bring in four 10-acre projects to escape that requirement. Mr. Worthy replied that the amendment could be written to require that anything totalling 40 acres or more would be subject to the requirement, allowing a developer to construct four segments of a project separately but figuring all four portions into the whole for purposes of open space requirement. In response to questioning from Commissioner Winchell, Mr. Worthy assured the Commission that the City would not be relinquishing any of the presently dedicated park land under this proposal. Commissioner Bannister noted that adoption of the proposal might result in lowered housing costs in the City in the future. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY PAONE THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES AS FOLLOWS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Adopt the 50 percent Median Fee Schedule as submitted. 2. Direct the City Attorney's office to amend Articles 974 and 996 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to require devel- opers of property parcels cumulatively 40 acres or larger to provide private neighborhood open space of 2.5 acres per 1,000 residents and eliminate the current 50 percent credit for golf courses and waterways. -11- 5-5-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 5, 1981 Page 12 AYES: Bannister, Porter, Paone NOES: Kenefick, Winchell ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Schumacher Commissioner Kenefick directed that the minutes show that she is not in opposition to the recommendations of the Department of Com- munity Services as submitted, but she feels that the City should pursue ways -to use the park fees that are collected for the purpose of park maintenance rather than for new acquisition and that a way should r� found to communicate that desire to the State Legislature, Chairman Porter also directed that the transmittal to the City Council on this"matter indicate that the Commission was somewhat less than unanimous in its approval of the recommendations; he also asked that the points addressed at this meeting should be included in such trans- mittal. CRITERIA FOR -WINDMILLS Pat Spencer discussed the two such structures in the City, noting that the one across the street from Lake Park is not really a windmill, as it has no blades, but only a decorative tower. The one on Slater Avenue is a.working windmill capable of generating approximately 1700 watts of power and needing a wind speed of about 20 knots to operate. Since the wind speed in the City is only about half that, probably not enough power.could be generated to justify the general use of such facilities in the community. The staff is requesting direction from the Commission on.whether or not it should pursue writing provisions into the code to -regulate future windmills or leave them alone and con- tinue to class them as accessory structures regulated by their base zoning districts. If a code were to be written, it would address such matters as noise generation, height of the structure, setbacks, lot dimensions and area, aesthetic concerns, and possible liability prob- lems. After Commission discussion, a motion was made by Paone and seconded by Kenefick directing staff to submit recommendations on how these structures might be controlled, including restricting them to certain specified zones or outright prohibition. However, after being told by staff that there is no base zoning district in the City where an accessory structure could be large enough to accommodate a windmill, Mr. Paone withdrew his motion. The Commission directed staff to con- tinue to gather information on the matter and return to the Commission with some proposal to provide reasonable control over windmill struc- tures. -12- 5-5-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 5, 1981 Page 13 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 19010 Applicant: Russ Jedinak A request to add balconies to certain specified buildings within a previously approved housing development located on the south side of Garfield Avenue east of Beech Boulevard. Savoy Bellavia outlined the history of the Commission's prior action on the subject project, and pointed out the additional conditions which the staff is recommending be added in the event the Commission approves the applicant's request. Commissioner Paone inquired if there had been any prior dis- agreement from the surrounding property owners on the subject of balconies on the interior units. Mr. Bell&via replied that the neighbors had objected to the balconies on the units which would abut their homes and in redrawing the plans to comply with that objection the developer had deleted the interior balconies as well rather than incorporate different working drawings into the project, but that there had been no specific objection to the interior balconies. Gisela Campagne, representing all the homeowners on Wadebridge Circle and Colchester Lane, addressed the Commission to object to the modification of the plans, citing the long negotiations which the neighbors had in good faith undertaken with the devel- oper and their fear that if the interior balconies are allowed the owners of the directly abutting units might at some later date also desire to construct the same balconies on their units, despite conditions which might be applied to prevent such action. Russ Jedinak, developer, also spoke to the Commission to state that he was fully in agreement with the homeowners that no balconies should be built adjacent to their homes, but that the inside balconies are needed to provide added open area for the people who will live in those units. He pointed out that the nature of the roofline and the difficulty and expense of constructing a balcony after the fact would prevent anyone from considering such an addition, and that the conditions proposed by staff would provide adequate control as well. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PAONE AND SECONDED BY BANNISTER TO APPROVE THE ADDITION OF BALCONIES TO THE SPECIFIC UNITS DESIGNATED IN THE REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH BY STAFF'. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Paone NOES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Since the motion to approve the request to amend the conditions of approval failed, the prior conditions remain in effect. -13- 5-5-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 5, 1981 Page 14 ZONE CHANGE NO. 78-14 - Discussion on Removal of Q-C3 Zoning Initiated by the Department of Development Services Discussion on the possible removal of the Q-C3 zoning designation applied.to property at the northwest corner of 17th Street and Olive, for failure to implement the "Q" designation within the pre- scribed period of time. Commissioner Paone indicated his intention to abstain from the Com- mission's consideration of this matter. - Savoy Bellavia reviewed the actions taken on the subject property and asked the Commission for direction. He noted that demolition of one building is all that -has taken place since the "Q" zoning was established and a.letter has been submitted asking for extension of time. The matter is -complicated by the fact that the abutting lots are tied to the subject property by.an approval for development as one integrated project; this was done when all the lots were under one ownership, and the ownership is now -fragmented. The owner of the existing building would like to proceed with modifications, but his approval had depended on providing one of the required parking spaces on the corner lot site and would be in violation on its own. Jim Maloney, representing the owner of the interior lots, addressed the Commission to explain the dilemma in which they find themselves and to request a resolution of the problem. Ed Bermudez, also representing the owner of the existing building, also spoke to say that his firm is -not after a decision on the zoning; all they want is permission to modernize their building, which they have been unable to obtain. The Commission and staff discussed the original plan as submitted, and it was..noted that one of the -points --stressed by Foxx Development, owner of all the properties at that time, was that the lots would be constructed as one development, permitting code requirements to be met. The original intent of the Commission at that time was also reviewed. It was the consensus of the Commission that efforts to coordinate a meeting between both owners to resolve how the lots would be developed should be made by staff prior to any decision on the zoning. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK CONSIDERATION OF THE REMOVAL OF THE Q-C3 ZONING AT THE CORNER OF 17TH STREET AND OLIVE AVENUE WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF MAY 19, 1981, AND STAFF DIR- ECTED TO ATTEMPT TO WORK OUT A RESOLUTION BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTY OWNERS, BY THE -FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: - Bannister, Kenefick, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Winchell ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Paone -14- 5-5-81 - P.C. 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 5, 1981 Page 15 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Secretary Palin reviewed the actions taken at the City Council meeting of May 4, 1981, for the information of the Commission. A memorandum from the City Attorney's office was read regarding assignment of new legal counsel to the Commission. Staff announced that a study session has been scheduled for May 12, 1981, to review development on the McDonnel Douglas site. June Catalano announced the scheduled review of the City's Coastal Element for the Regional Coastal Commission meeting on May 11, 1981. COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Kenefick distributed a housing brochure to other Commission members and staff. Commissioner Bannister asked that the staff provide recommenda- tions creating open space in the apartment standards to comply with that required for condominiums. Commissioner Winchell asked that the staff compile a listing of of constructed complexes utilizing the concept of zero lot line development which has been requested in the Townlot Specific Plan area. Chairman Porter asked for information on the closure of Taylor Drive. Public Works staff replied that the barricades will be moved easterly toward Beach Boulevard 150 feet and will extend across the sidewalk as well as the street right-of-way. Another evaluation will take place in six months. Bruce Gilmer also noted that a recommendation will be made by Public Works on the realignment of Gothard Avenue some time later in the summer. Commissioner Paone suggested that standard plans be drawn up the the treatment of the rights -of -way designated as landscaped corridors. The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. to a special study session on May 12, 1981 at 7:00 p.m. in Room B-8 of the Civic Center. �Zl L Ames W. Palin, Secretary :df Marcus M. Po er, ai an -15- 5-5-81 - P.C.